menageriekeeper
Active Member
Well it wouldn't be my place to call someone else's pastor and complain about how they run their church now would it?
This particular lady comes very close to meeting the "widow" definition. The X was and is an abusive <discriptor that's not polite, I'm editing myself>, who is responsible for certain of the childrens expenses beyond just child support. Only he likes the power trip he gets from withholding the money until the very last second. He gives it just before he would get in trouble with the law. This means they often must do without necessities until he "gets around to it". He did this kind of stuff when they were married and worse, so this is no surprise.
I simply believe that churches who pride themselves on missions and giving could do a better job at serving their own members who are in need, without making it seem as though those members are a burden.
We as churches don't make missions giving a burden. When we gathered who knows how many supplies and sent to the gulf coast, we didn't consider it a burden. These things are considered a privledge! Why then is tending to the needs of our members considered a burden?
Why do you believe that "The individual needs to do something to try and improve their situation", without allowing for the possiblity that that individual may already be at their maximum potential?
Do you believe I'm enabling this family to remain poor by buying them groceries as I buy my own? Or by covering an expense occasionally?
These things may be possibilities in some cases, but where do we draw the line between help and enablement?
This particular lady comes very close to meeting the "widow" definition. The X was and is an abusive <discriptor that's not polite, I'm editing myself>, who is responsible for certain of the childrens expenses beyond just child support. Only he likes the power trip he gets from withholding the money until the very last second. He gives it just before he would get in trouble with the law. This means they often must do without necessities until he "gets around to it". He did this kind of stuff when they were married and worse, so this is no surprise.
I simply believe that churches who pride themselves on missions and giving could do a better job at serving their own members who are in need, without making it seem as though those members are a burden.
We as churches don't make missions giving a burden. When we gathered who knows how many supplies and sent to the gulf coast, we didn't consider it a burden. These things are considered a privledge! Why then is tending to the needs of our members considered a burden?
Why do you believe that "The individual needs to do something to try and improve their situation", without allowing for the possiblity that that individual may already be at their maximum potential?
Do you believe I'm enabling this family to remain poor by buying them groceries as I buy my own? Or by covering an expense occasionally?
These things may be possibilities in some cases, but where do we draw the line between help and enablement?